4.7 Article

Carbapenem Susceptibility Testing Errors Using Three Automated Systems, Disk Diffusion, Etest, and Broth Microdilution and Carbapenem Resistance Genes in Isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus Complex

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 55, 期 10, 页码 4707-4711

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00112-11

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex (ABC) is associated with increasing carbapenem resistance, necessitating accurate resistance testing to maximize therapeutic options. We determined the accuracy of carbapenem antimicrobial susceptibility tests for ABC isolates and surveyed them for genetic determinants of carbapenem resistance. A total of 107 single-patient ABC isolates from blood and wound infections from 2006 to 2008 were evaluated. MICs of imipenem, meropenem, and doripenem determined by broth microdilution (BMD) were compared to results obtained by disk diffusion, Etest, and automated methods (the MicroScan, Phoenix, and Vitek 2 systems). Discordant results were categorized as very major errors (VME), major errors (ME), and minor errors (mE). DNA sequences encoding OXA beta-lactamase enzymes (bla(OXA-23-like), bla(OXA-24-like), bla(OXA-58-like), and bla(OXA-51-like)) and metallo-beta-lactamases (MBLs) (IMP, VIM, and SIM1) were identified by PCR, as was the KPC2 carbapenemase gene. Imipenem was more active than meropenem and doripenem. The percentage of susceptibility was 37.4% for imipenem, 35.5% for meropenem, and 3.7% for doripenem. Manual methods were more accurate than automated methods. bla(OXA-23-like) and bla(OXA-24-like) were the primary resistance genes found. bla(OXA-58-like), MBLs, and KPC2 were not present. Both automated testing and manual testing for susceptibility to doripenem were very inaccurate, with VME rates ranging between 2.8 and 30.8%. International variability in carbapenem breakpoints and the absence of CLSI breakpoints for doripenem present a challenge in susceptibility testing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据